Dear friends, How are you doing all?I am posting the article, which will appear in Korea Times on 21st and 22nd June,1999 under tha column "Thoughts of the Times". Read if you find time! Sincerely, Sanjeev. Savior of the Peace and Nobel Prize (II) "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." -- Albert Einstein This is how Albert Einstein eulogized one of the most inspiring and influential men of the twentieth century, Mohandas Gandhi. Not only did Gandhi almost single-handedly free India and its five hundred million people from their long subjection to the British Empire, but he did so without raising an army, without firing a gun or taking a hostage, and without ever holding a political office. How could one slight, soft-spoken man accomplish such a remarkable feat? The answer lies in the overpowering force of his character: Satyagraha (Sanskrit, "truth and firmness"). Still he was ignored for conferring the Nobel prize. The British Royal house with its family ties with the Norwegian Royal Palace might have had a hand in the denial of Nobel peace prize to Gandhi. The head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee after World War II helped to block a peace prize to Mahatma Gandhi and even opposed an award to the Red Cross, according to a hitherto unpublished diary. Excerpts of Gunnar Jahn's diary, made available to Reuters recently, gives an unprecedented glimpse into arguments and rivalries in the secretive five-member committee which controls what many consider the world's most prestigious award. Jahn served on the committee from 1942 to 1966, was a leader of the resistance to the Nazis who occupied Norway during the war. His typed diary had been locked in the Nobel Institute under a 50-secrecy rule. ``This diary is the only direct source of the committee뭩 internal deliberations,'' said Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute. ``It gives a clear impression of Jahn's style --he seemed a ill-natured man.'' In 1947, for instance, two of the five members wanted to give Gandhi the prize for his philosophy of passive resistance that won India independence from Britain that year -- the first documentary evidence of how close Gandhi came to winning the Nobel. Gandhi's omission from the list of laureates is often considered the worst error in the history of the prize, first awarded in 1901. Historians say Norway's gratitude to Britain after the war and a trace of racism may have deprived Gandhi of the award. Jahn, an opponent of giving Gandhi the prize, said he told Committee members about Gandhi: "He is obviously the greatest personality proposed and there are many good things to say about Gandhi. But we must remember that he is not only an apostle of peace, he is also a nationalist''. Jahn said he was worried, after two Committee members came out in favor of Gandhi, that former foreign minister Birger Braadland, might also vote for him and hand him the prize. When Braadland did not, Jahn said he had understood international relations. Martin Tranmael, another Committee member opposed to Gandhi, said warring between India and Pakistan after the collapse of the British rule in 1947 had to be resolved first. The 1947 prize ended up going to two main Quaker organizations, the Friends Service Council of Britain and the American Friend Service Committee. Gandhi was assassinated in January 1948 -- a year Jahn made no entry in his diary. We know that many Noble peace prize winners got the inspiration from Mahatma and in their speeches, they always vow to work for the peace and the non-violence theory practiced by the Mahatma. What can be the credibility of the Noble peace prize when it was not awarded to the apostle of peace, inventor of the non-violence theory ( Ahimha ), and the follower and practitioner of truth. The person who became the symbol of peace for the whole world and inspired the people of this globe to follow the theory of non-violence was deprived of the prize, who else could be the appropriate person to be conferred with the Nobel Peace Prize? Had he been given that award, the credibility of the Nobel peace prize might have been increased by many folds. But the great soul who lived and died for others never had any desire for the recognition of his work by being awarded. He had no nationality, when we talk about Gandhi, we do not say "Indian Gandhi". We simply say Gandhi. In fact, many world leaders who got inspiration from him are known as the regional Gandhis i.e. Dr. Nelson Mandela, South African Gandhi. If you read the speech of any Nobel peace laureate, all talked about their source of their inspiration as Mahatma Gandhi not an African or Indian Gandhi. What can we say about award committee? Are they racist or biased in selecting the awardees? If the answer is yes, it is not far that people may not believe in the fairness of the selection committee for candidates to be awarded and it would hamper the credibility of the prize and would undermine the purpose of the award which were institutionalized to inspire the people of this globe to follow the peace and give up the path of violence. I urge this committee of peace to correct the mistakes and set the record straight by awarding the last Nobel Peace Prize of the century to the Mahatma. The prize money can be used in making a trust in the name of the Mahatma and this fund can be awarded to organizations working internationally for peace and upliftment of downtrodden. Help in this gesture to create a better tomorrow for the orphans of violence, and honor the memory of the 20th century's greatest warrior for peace뾏ahatma Gandhi. "Gandhi was inevitable. If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived, thought and acted, inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace and harmony. We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk." --- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.